Quote:
Originally posted by mbyron
I thought the replay was inconclusive about whether the ball hit the ground.
But Eddings CLEARLY signaled the strike AND the out. And THEN the catcher rolled the ball in. What was that all about?
|
The problem rests with Eddings' mechanics.
As we all know, we can basically place umpires into one of two categories with regards to the method they use (i.e. mechanic) to signal a strike. Some are "pointers" and some are "hammers."
The problem with the "hammer" is that it looks much like the classic "out" signal. A "point" could never be confused for an "out." So, in that regard, pointing has its advantages with regards to clarity.
That doesn't make the hammer as a strike signal wrong, however. Eddings is a hammer guy.
The players will quickly figure out whether an umpire is a pointer or hammer as most umpires are consistent in this regard.
Most umpires who employ the hammer have to be diligent about SAYING that a batter is out to avoid any confusion. A pointer really doesn't have to worry about that so much as he never gives any signal that could remotely be confused with the classic OUT signal.
The problem with Eddings is that his swinging strike mechanic has TWO PARTS. The first is an extended right arm signal (presumably signaling a strike) followed by a hammer.
There is no way to interpret the first signal (the extended arm) as anything other than a STRIKE call; which calls into question what the NEXT signal is supposed to mean.
Harold Reynolds interpreted the extended arm signal as a "he didn't make contact signal" followed by the "strike" signal. Who ever gives a "he didn't make contact signal"? That is very unusual and certainly not standard if, in fact, that is the intent of those signals, as Harold Reynolds interpreted them.
In the post game interview, Eddings gives no explanation for his extended arm signal, focusing only on his pumping motion which he characterized as his usual "swinging strike" mechanic.
What Eddings signaled was clear, what the signals meant was NOT clear ...
1. He extends his right arm = STRIKE!
2. He then pumps his right arm = REALLY A STRIKE! ???
* * *
The bottom line is this:
This is a commonly missed call on the part of the plate umpire. When the ball is *THAT* close to the ground it is nearly IMPOSSIBLE to make any fine discernment about whether the ball was caught cleanly or short hopped into the catcher's glove.
Whether the umpire gets it right or wrong is immaterial since the players always "fix" this with their follow-up actions.
1. The catcher tags the runner right away and the point is rendered moot.
-or-
2. Despite the ball being uncaught, the batter shows indifference and returns to the dugout, also rendering the point moot.
* * *
I think the blame rests solely on the catcher for not doing his job, although I am of the opinion that Eddings' strike mechanic has too many moving parts, lending itself to the type of criticism he is now getting.
David Emerling
Memphis, TN